ORDER
1. This revision is filed by the Insurance Company which is the first responded in OP No.46 of 1991 questioning the impugned orders of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge at Hindupur in IA No.522 of 1992, dated 20-1-1993 by which the said petition filed for amendment of claim petition was allowed.
2. The first respondent herein is the injured-claimant in OP No.46 of 1991. The said claim petition was filed seeking compensation for the injuries received by the claimant in a motor accident. In the claim petition it was pleaded by the first respondent herein at the first instance that on the date of accident he travelled as a passenger by paying a fare of Rs.5.00 and that while travelling as such passenger he received injuries in the accident that was caused. After the evidence on behalf of the both sides was over and when the petition was coming up for arguments the claimant filed IA No.522 of 1922 under Order VI Rule 57 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment of the claim petition as to plea that he was travelling in the vehicle along with a rice bag and he paid an amount of Rs.10.00 as hire charges for the said rice bag to the driver. The said amendment was opposed by the Insurance Company which is contesting the petition. By the impugned order dated 20-1-1993 the Tribunal allowed the said petition for amendment. Questioning the same the present revision is filed by the Insurance Company.
3. Heard both the learned Counsel.
4. It is seen from the facts of this case that in the original claim petition it was specifically mentioned in column No.15 that the vehicle which was involved in the accident was a Malador Van bearing No. ATA 198. In para 26 of the claim petition it was specifically stated that on 10-10-1990 which is the date of accident the claimant travelled in the Matador Van bearing No.ATA 198 by paying Rs.5.00 towards fare to go to Hindupur and that there were other passengers also in the vehicle. The Insurance Company, which is one of the respondents contested the petition by filing its counter. Both the parties let in their evidence and after the evidence was closed the OP was posted for arguments. Till then no effort was made by the claimant to come forward with any amendment regarding the pleadings in the claim petition. After the matter was posted for arguments the claimant came up with the plea that he was carrying a rice-bag along with him and that he paid hire charges of Rs.10.00 to the driver for carrying such rice-bag. Such plea is evidently taken by the claimant in the proposed amendment with a view to show that he was travelling in the vehicle as “owner of goods”. The specific contention of the Insurance Company is that the van which
was involved in the accident was a goods vehicle and it is not liable to pay any compensation for a fare paying passenger. Evidently, under these circumstances, the claimant came up with a completely new case so as to plead that he was the owner of the goods i.e., rice-bag and was carrying such rice-bag along with him and travelling in the vehicle by paying the required hire charges to the driver. Such a conflicting and contradictory plea is taken so as to make the Insurance Company also liable to pay the compensation. Even though a contention is raised in the grounds that the amendment cannot be allowed as it is barred by limitation by the date of filing claim petition such plea is not raised during the course of arguments of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner. It was also further contended in the grounds that Order VI Rule 17 CPC is not applicable for seeking amendments in the claim proceedings before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Such contention also cannot be accepted in view of the decision of this Court reported in Krishan Reddy v. K. Ramulamma, , and also the Full Bench decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Jai Singh v. N.A. Subramaniam, (FB). Therefore, as far as the maintainability of the petition for amendment is concerned the contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner cannot be accepted. But, going into merits of the case, the contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner that the lower Court has erred in allowing the petition for amendment even though the plea that was sought to be taken by way of amendment is completely contra and changes the very nature of the case has got any amount of force and is to be accepted.
5. In the decision reported in Rachhpal Singh v. Union of India, , which is the decision of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana it is observed that an amendment which completely changes the nature of the case and .totally displaces the earlier claim cannot be allowed. In that case it was originally contended that the driver was driving the bus at a normal speed and the accident took place on account of the negligence of the train-driver who did not blow the whistle before crossing the unmanned level crossing. Subsequently the claimant sought amendment of the claim application so as to plead that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the bus driver also. The learned Judge calegorically stated that such an amendment cannot be allowed as it totally changes the nature of the case and displaces the earlier contention in the claim petition. In the present case also the specific contention of the claimant in the original claim petition that he travelled as a passenger by paying fare of Rs.5.00. Subsequently in the amendment petition it was sought to be contended that he travelled as owner of the goods by carrying a rice-bag and paying hire charges of Rs.10.00 to the driver. There were no bona fides in such subsequent amendment sought to be made and such amendment was sought to be effected only for the purpose of making the Insurance Company liable by contending that he travelled as owner of the goods and not as a passenger. The vehicle mentioned in the claim petition was shown as a Matador Van and it was not stated that it was a goods vehicle. Evidently, having come to know during the course of the trial of the case that the vehicle that was involved in the accident was a goods vehicle the claimant proposed to change the very capacity in which he was travelling in that vehicle by the time of accident by contending that he travelled as a owner of the goods by carrying a rice-bag. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal has clearly erred in allowing such an amendment petition which clearly changes the nature of the claim as put forward originally in the claim petition and such amendment cannot be permitted.
6. In these circumstances, the revision is allowed and the impugned order of the lower Court is set aside and IA No.522 of 1992 is dismissed. No costs.